2015-09-02_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 5, 2015 Page 13 Chair Boguszewski responded that generally the traffic study calculated vehicle traffic 607 and differences between current and projected increases. 608 Mr. Gange asked if this facility included independent and assisted living units, opining 609 that depending on how many were independent units it could also impact not only 610 vehicular traffic but pedestrian traffic in the neighborhood. 611 Mr. Nelson confirmed that both would be included, and the percentage breakdowns 612 between the two types of units would vary, depending on the need. Mr. Nelson estimated 613 initially independent units may represent about one-third or 40% of the available units 614 based on their other facilities and projected needs in the community and area; but 615 reiterated that this would ebb and flow as residents moved from one type of unit to 616 another. Mr. Nelson suggested about 1/3 of the units not memory care with the remainder 617 of approximately 30 units for memory care, or 35-50% of the remaining 85 units. 618 With no one else appearing to speak, Chair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at 619 8:21 p.m. 620 Commission Discussion 621 After public comment, Chair Boguszewski opined that he was even more convinced that 622 a traffic study was needed. While the preliminary plat met all code requirements and it 623 was recognized that the plan was not written in stone at this point of the development, 624 Chair Boguszewski stated that there may be other options found and conditions to 625 address site access, parking and other amendments that could still meet requirements of 626 city code and serve the site and neighborhood more effectively. 627 Mr. Lloyd acknowledged that comment; however, he clarified that a preliminary plat’s 628 intent was at its core required to address boundaries and easements; with the proposal 629 for actual development illustrated in the meeting materials only intended as a concept 630 and to help understand engineering work done to-date. 631 Chair Boguszewski noted conditions for approval of this preliminary plat already outlined 632 in the staff report as defined by staff; and recognized the potential for additional 633 conditions as well. 634 Member Daire sought clarification on the trigger requiring a developer to hold an open 635 house and how that related to this proposal and preliminary plat. 636 Mr. Lloyd clarified that, since this development was under the subdivision threshold of 637 four lots, with it currently being four lots creating two in replatting, the developer had not 638 been required to hold an open house. 639 Member Daire noted that this public hearing may represent the only and first opportunity, 640 given the number of neighbors present in tonight’s audience, that the neighborhood had 641 gotten details on the project. 642 Mr. Lloyd acknowledged that this may be the case; but further noted that the process was 643 typical for a public hearing on a preliminary plat with a development proposal going along 644 with it on the same parallel course. As Mr. Nelson stated earlier in his comments, Mr. 645 Lloyd noted that this was the first opportunity for the neighbors to hear the details, and 646 had offered to hold a non-required informational meeting with neighbors to address this 647 project along with the one proposed further east of this project as well. 648 In his service on the City’s Task Force reviewing and revising zoning notification areas, 649 Member Daire noted that he had become very sensitive to the need to involve neighbors 650 early on in discussions. As a matter of courtesy, Member Daire suggested it may have 651 been prudent for the developer to hold an open house prior to tonight’s public hearing. 652 Mark Nelson 653 Mr. Nelson reiterated the developer’s commitment to holding an open house, but 654 admitted the timing had gotten off track, and their original intent had been to discuss both 655 projects at the same time. However, due to unforeseen issues, Mr. Nelson noted the 656 former Owasso School site project had been running behind. Mr. Nelson expressed 657